ejecutar_cortocircuito_iec60909_2ph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the experimental pandapower backend, the scoping of the Z2=Z1 assumption (only for the passive symmetric network currently supported, explicitly not universal), the MIN prerequisites, and that output is recorded in V5/V4 with no professional emission. Missing only error/failure behavior and return semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded with the fault type first, but it relies on undocumented internal codes (P4C06, V5/V4) and dense jargon that an agent cannot resolve from the definition alone, costing some clarity per sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers constraints and side effects reasonably but omits error conditions, return shape, and precise per-parameter meaning. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It references the key parameters conceptually (endtemp_degree by name, ip/Ith via calcular_ip_ith, κ-method, topology/time gates) and bus_falla is required, but it does not clarify defaults, formats, or the tk_s parameter, leaving roughly half the semantics to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (ejecuta) and a precise resource (IEC 60909 fase-fase sin tierra / 2F MAX/MIN), and the fault type cleanly separates it from the 3ph, 1ph_ground and 2ph_ground siblings. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives conditional guidance for the MIN mode (requires explicit endtemp_degree per line) and notes the topology/time/κ-method gates still apply, but never states when to choose this tool over the 3ph / 1ph_ground / 2ph_ground alternatives. Usage is implied by fault type rather than explicitly framed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.